Congress passed the fannie lou hamer, rosa parks, coretta scott king, cesar e. Holder on the 2016 general election is an initiative of the leadership conference education fund with the support of the aclu, the advancement project, asian americans advancing justice aajc, the brennan center for justice, the lawyers committee for civil rights. Holder opinion of the us court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit may 18, 2012. Holder that congress had exceeded its fifteenth amendment enforcement authority when it reauthorized a part of the voting rights act a coverage formula that forced places with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before making changes to their election laws.
Holder, a major case decided by the united states supreme court in 20, declared section 4b of the voting rights act of 1965 unconstitutional, removing preclearance requirements for all jurisdictions unless the preclearance formula of section 4b is updated by congress. Holder 2 about the naacp legal defense and educational fund, inc. For example, voter id laws in texas passed in texas last year could possibly disenfranchise more than 700,000 registered voters who lack personal identification, the majority of whom are from minority groups1 ruled in shelby county v. Yankah talks about the supreme court decision in shelby county v. Shelby county tried the constitutionality of sections 4b and 5 of the voting. Democracy diminished state and local threats to voting. Since 1965, the vra has helped to secure the right to vote for millions of americans. Holder is a landmark decision because it invalidated a way to combat jurisdictions that had a history of discrimination in voting. Our country has changed, he wrote in his majority opinion in shelby county v.
Jun 25, 20 shelby county, alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4b are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. While holder is the registered defendant, several other parties have also intervened as defendants such as the naacp, ldf and the aclu voting rights project. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Not surprisingly, in the few short years following the decision, voteridentification laws that make voting harder for poor people, people of color, and elderly people, have been moving forward in a. Jul 07, 2014 state legislatures have been far more active since shelby county v. Oral argument audio home supreme court of the united states. The voting rights act is in jeopardy, but it shouldnt be. Holder, in an opinion by chief justice roberts, indicated that there were constitutional concerns about the constitutionality of section 5. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the sections and granted summary judgment for the. Source document contributed to documentcloud by news documents the new york times. In june 20, the supreme court in a 54 decision, decided. Shelby county contends that, in addition to its theoretical flaws, the preclearance coverage formula is flawed in practice. This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the united states reports. Holder 20, a landmark case, the supreme court struck down section 4 of the voting rights act of 1965, which provided the federal government with a formula to determine which voting jurisdictions should be subject to oversight when passing electoral laws.
These are the sources and citations used to research shelby county v. State and local threats to voting postshelby county, alabama v. They have appealed to the courts against holder, who is the attorney general of alabama. The county filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4b are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement, according to oyez, a project of the illinois institute of technology chicagokent college of. Following the shelby county decision, states and local jurisdictions have been free. Pdf impact of voting rights amendment act of 2014 and. Holder on alaskan redistricting, imla midyear seminar, anchorage, ak may 20, 2014. Petitioner argues voter registration and turnout are more equal in covered than in uncovered jurisdictions. Holder the shelby county case argues that it should no longer be considered under section 5, but also that congress 2006 renewal of the act was.
Holder 10 october 2016 with the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the act from the department of justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. Holder brief for respondentintervenors january 30, 20. Holder, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, congress must ensure that the legislation. Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. Holder some of the laws passed since the ruling were unquestionably beneficial to voters like online voter registration. Holder frequently asked questions what is the voting rights act of 1965.
Readers are requested to notify the reporter of decisions, supreme court of the united states, washington, d. Ldf or naacp legal defense fund is the countrys first and foremost civil rights. Published in volume 109, pages 16165 of aea papers and proceedings, may 2019, abstract. Holder decision is three years old, but its expected to make a huge impact at the polls for the 2016 presidential elections. State legislatures have been far more active since shelby county v. Hatch period 4 april 28, 2014 june 25, 20 was the court date of the supreme court decision.
Holder, legal case, decided on june 25, 20, in which the u. Petitioner shelby county, in the covered jurisdiction. In the five years since the landmark decision, the supreme court has set the stage for a new era of white hegemony. Statement by the president on the supreme court ruling on shelby. A guide to the supreme court decision on the voting rights act. Holder, and its impact on the voting rights act of 1965. A guide to the supreme court decision on the voting rights. The voting rights act doesnt need to treat states equally zachary price shelby county v.
In 2010, shelby county alabama sued the attorney general in the district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4b and 5 of the act are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The battles raging in texas, north carolina, and other. Holder opens the floodgates to new forms of voter suppression and discriminatory electoral tactics. The voting rights act of 1965 vra is one of the most important, effective pieces of civil rights legislation ever passed. Apr 14, 2017 our country has changed, he wrote in his majority opinion in shelby county v.
Ap govt supreme court cases study guide by kbaker0816 includes 34 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more. The voting rights act of 1965, which was signed into law as a defense against discriminatory voting practices, was altered in a controversial decision in 20. The result, in shelby countys view, is that the coverage formula is both overinclusive and underinclusive. Holder was a june 25, 20, supreme court decision that struck down the formula used in section 4 of the voting rights act as unconstitutional. While holder is the registered defendant, several other parties have also intervened as defendants such as.
This case involves a constitutional challenge to section 5 brought by shelby county, alabama. Holder decision struck down a key provision of the act, the preclearance section. Attorney general holder memorandum opinion september 21, 2011. Nov 01, 2012 the court said it would hear shelby v. On june 25, 20, the supreme court struck down the coverage formula of section 5 of the voting rights act, a civil rights law that has protected the right to vote for people of color since 1965. Holder, a constitutional challenge to preclearance provisions of the voting rights act of 1965. Petitioner shelby county, in the covered jurisdiction of alabama, sued the attorney general in federal district court in washington, d. The court upheld the validity of the act, as did the court of appeals for the d. Shelby county, alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4b are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The 1965 voting rights act vra is considered by many to be the most ef. Pdf chief justices yearend reports on the federal judiciary. Impact of voting rights amendment act of 2014 and shelby county v. Leaping to resolve shelby countys facial challenge without considering whether application of the vra to shelby county is constitutional, or even addressing the vras severability provision, the courts opinion can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decisionmaking. Holder and the future of the voting rights act nathaniel persily and thomas mann introduction e ven for many who accurately predicted the result, the supreme courts 5.
Holder where it decided that section 4b of the voting rights act was unconstitutional. United states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. I am deeply disappointed with the supreme courts decision today. The result, in shelby county s view, is that the coverage formula is both overinclusive and underinclusive. Democracy diminished state and local threats to voting post shelby county, alabama v. Petitioner shelby county, alabama petitioner respectfully submits. Another lawsuit joining this one is on behalf of teenagers, who say their 26th.
Holder revolves around section 4 of the voting rights act, which establishes a coverage formula to. Voting rights cases on behalf of american indians116 a. On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit june 25, 20 chief justice roberts delivered the opinion of the court. The aclu intervened in the case on behalf of the alabama state conference of the naacp. The restoration of constitutional order 35 later revised that provision to more broadly outlaw any law or practice that results in the denial of the right to vote. Litigation by geography and political subdivision 2 the authors would like to thank alaina mothershead, a university of utah undergraduate. The battles raging in texas, north carolina, and other states. Holder revolves around section 4 of the voting rights act, which establishes a coverage formula to determine which states and local governments fall under section 5, and therefore need to get approval before changing their voting laws. On june 25, the supreme court released its decision in shelby county v. Tatel and griffith, circuit judges, and williams, senior circuit judge. The voting rights act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an. Preclearance may be a blunt instrument, but bailout is a sharpening stone ryan emenaker shelby county v. Holder, which found section 4 of the voting rights act the coverage formula.
The district court upheld the constitutionality of the sections and granted summary judgment for the attorney general. Holder, which directly challenged the constitutionality of the section 5 preclearance requirement. Supreme court declared 54 unconstitutional section 4 of the voting rights act vra of 1965, which set forth a formula for determining which jurisdictions were required under section 5 of the act to seek federal. The right wing takes aim at section 5 of the voting rights act. The supreme court has issued a ruling in a key voting rights case regarding the voting rights act and continued federal oversight of elections in states with a past history of discrimination. Quizlet flashcards, activities and games help you improve your grades.
962 1190 1309 1177 342 1260 1188 77 1154 908 1198 854 20 1306 1181 450 145 605 1581 1367 283 1312 847 937 248 144 750